I vote for keeping the real-world questions about design and
troubleshooting in the list. The answers do not compete with the answers
someone would get from a paid consultant. They are "off the cuff" answers
that are useful for learning, but not very detailed.
These work-related questions are the most interesting and the best for
learning. They are a heck of a lot better than the questions about passing
scores, availability of brain d*mps, which of the following is the right
answer for this question, with so many typos that one can't help think that
the person is writing it from their Palm Pilot after leaving the test
center and failing miserably due to utter cluelessness.
Priscilla
At 02:31 PM 8/20/01, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>Not that I disagree, Don, but this has been a source of annoyance for many
>folks for as long as I've been on the list ( around 2 years. )
>
>two points:
>
>1) sometimes some of these work related scenarios provide good learning
>points
>
>2) people ask these kinds of questions on all the lists, no matter what. The
>CCIE list would get it's fair share of this kind of question as well.
>
>without having the list 100% moderated, with all messages being reviewed,
>there is no practical way to stop this. and sometimes there is something to
>be learned that is applicable to one's studies.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Donald B Johnson jr
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:09 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
>
>
>I think that if there is a split, all these questions concerning work should
>be split out. It is supposed to be about group study not group consulting.
>Over the time that I have been here there seems to be a growing number of
>narrowly worded questions to bail someone out at work, and this individual
>doesn't even seem to consult CCO most of the time, even though they are
>supporting a Cisco platform. The culture here seems to support and highly
>respect the intellectual property of others, which I whole-heartedly agree,
>but it shows a lack of respect for those who consult for a living. I
>personally like giving "so called flames" to people who are looking for free
>consulting work to hide there apparent laziness. Just like everyone chimes
>in when someone comes here and tries to sell certzone labs gets blasted. I
>wish that blatant " my boss wants me to set up a central frame hub and six
>spoke network what should I do" should get blasted or pointed to place where
>people can consult for food. Paul any e-mail that has boss in it should get
>an automated stock reply, check CCO, call cisco, buy gear, have cisco SE set
>it up, have a nice day. Now I know people are going to say that this is how
>they learn by posting real world questions and this is true but it is the
>blatant ones that I am talking about. Oh and keep this in mind that the
>people answering the these so called learning experiences didn't just know
>the answer, at some point they had to check CCO, contact Cisco, buy gear,
>work with Cisco SE, have a nice day.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>To:
>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 7:40 PM
>Subject: Re: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
>
>
> > When I go on vaction I unsubscribe and then subscribe again. Would all my
> > messages go in the moderator's queue when I subscribed again? That would
>be
> > annoying for the moderator (and for me. ;-) Other than that, I think it's
>a
> > good idea to have messages from a new subscriber go through the moderator
> > for a while. As I'm sure you have considered, it's not a very "scalable"
> > idea, though.
> >
> > I hope you don't divide the group again. The general networking questions
> > are helpful to those studying for CCNP and CCDP. The diversity of
messages
> > (except for the flames, of course) are good for learning and represent
the
> > real world better than if we just got questions about passing scores,
etc.
> >
> > Thanks again for all you do for us!
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> > At 12:02 PM 8/17/01, Paul Borghese wrote:
> > >With an open group, you are going to have your share of noise.
>Everyone's
> > >ides of noise is different. For example, to many this very e-mail is
>noise
> > >because it is not directly on subject.
> > >
> > >But there are some things we can do to help lessen the noise. They are
>on
> > >my to-do list, just have been too busy.:
> > >
> > >1. Comprehensive FAQ - we need a new faq that can answer the questions
>that
> > >are asked over and over again.
> > >
> > >2. Split out the professional group from the general networking group.
> > >
> > >3. Setup a system where new users can not post directly to the group -
>This
> > >is the most difficult of the three ideas and will require substantial
> > >coding. What I want is to have a system where when an e-mail arrives
(or
> > >from the newsfeed or website), if the poster has not been approved, it
>gets
> > >bounced into the moderators queue. If the moderator (actually we will
>have
> > >many) agrees that the message is appropriate, the moderator will allow
>the
> > >message to pass. Plus if the moderator feels that the poster will
>continue
> > >to send interesting and valuable e-mails, the moderator can place the
>user
> > >in the "automatic approval" category so future e-mails will not need to
>be
> > >approved. The goal is to bounce new messages from first time posters,
>but
> > >allow the old-timers to post without moderation. Thus filtering the new
> > >user asking inappropriate questions and the occasional spam.
> > >
> > >Take care,
> > >
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "John Neiberger"
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 6:05 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes, Paul did do a good job cutting down that traffic. I just
noticed
> > > > that in the last month or so there has been a slew of *really* basic
> > > > questions that can be answered in the first two or three chapters of
>any
> > > > decent CCNA study guide or by a 30 second search on CCO.
> > > >
> > > > I certainly don't mind answering these types of questions, I was just
> > > > concerned that the purpose of the two separate lists was being
> > > > undermined, causing a lot of unnecessary traffic. To me it's no
> > > > different than posting jobs on the Associate or Professional lists.
>It
> > > > may reach some of the right people, but it's not the appropriate
place
> > > > to post that type of information.
> > > >
> > > > >>> "Tom Lisa" 8/15/01 3:19:55 PM >>>
> > > > Yes, John, there is an Associate list. We have a similar problem
> > > > there as well. People keep insisting on asking CCNP/CCIE level
> > > > questions on that list.
> > > >
> > > > However, people being the way they are, I doubt we will ever
> > > > solve the problem completely. But, you got to admit that Paul
> > > > at least cut down on the volume of CCNA level traffic on this list.
> > > >
> > > > Prof. Tom Lisa, CCAI
> > > > Community College of Southern Nevada
> > > > Cisco Regional Networking Academy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John Neiberger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Excuse me for this rant. I'm not trying to be the content cop, I
> > > > just
> > > > wanted to make an observation.
> > > >
> > > > Do we no longer have an Associate list as well as the Professional
> > > > list? We've been getting horrendous numbers of emails lately that
> > > > simply do not belong on this list. If you don't know how to
connect
> > > > a
> > > > PC to a router using the console cable or how to connect two
routers
> > > > back-to-back, it seems to me that you should ask those types of
> > > > questions on the CCNA-level list, not the CCNP-level list.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not intending to come down too hard on people asking these
> > > > questions, I'm just asking that you post to the appropriate list.
> > > > The
> > > > Associate mailing list is intended for the simpler questions, while
> > > > the
> > > > Professional list is intended for those with slighly more advanced
> > > > questions. I understand that we tend to grant a *lot* of leeway
> > > > when
> > > > it
> > > > comes to subject matter, but the level of the question should still
> > > > be
> > > > appropriate to the list it's posted to.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, enough ranting. :-) Back to our regular programming....
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > John
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ________________________
> >
> > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > http://www.priscilla.com
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16585&t=16217
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
